Liberal government. Liberals are free-thinking people

from lat. liber - free) - bourgeois. ideological and social-political movement that united supporters of the bourgeois parliament. building and bourgeois free L. was widespread among the bourgeoisie during the pre-monopoly period. capitalism. Then L. represented a more or less integral system of views, according to which social harmony and progress of mankind are achievable only on the basis of private property by ensuring sufficient freedom of the individual in the economy and in all other human spheres. activity (for the common good allegedly spontaneously develops as a result of the implementation by individuals of their personal goals), and capitalist. the structure is natural and eternal. The real content of literature, specific to each stage of the development of capitalism, was manifested in the activities of the social strata uniting under the banner of capitalism (the “middle classes” - the industrial-commercial bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia associated with them, the bourgeois nobility, a certain part of the large, including part of the monopolistic bourgeoisie) and has undergone a complex evolution with extreme diversity of concrete history. (in particular, national) forms. In a modified form (in relation to the conditions of imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism), the ideas of L. are still used by defenders of capitalism. L. arose in the conditions of the struggle of the young progressive bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nobility against feudalism as a weapon in the struggle against feudalism. oppression, arbitrariness of absolutism and spiritual oppression of Catholics. churches; During that period, L. was the bearer of ideals (belief in progress, in the triumph of reason, peace, freedom, equality) common to all antifeudal societies. camps, the implementation of which, however, was least of all possible on the basis of the specific program of L. (constitutional monarchy, liberation from feudal shackles only of large property). The spiritual fathers of Latvia were representatives of the moderate wing of enlightenment rationalists (Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and the Physiocrats; the formula of the latter, laissez-faire, laissez-passer - “don’t interfere with action,” became one of the most popular slogans of Latvia), the creators of the bourgeoisie. classic political savings (A. Smith, D. Ricardo). At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. L. in the West Europe stands out as a special socio-political. flow. Around 1816, the term “L.”, initially extremely vague, also became widespread. In France, during the Restoration period, B. Constant, Guizot, and others for the first time gave the character of more or less formalized political politics to L. and historical and philosophical doctrine. From the ideological heritage of the Enlightenment, they chose only those provisions that met the everyday needs of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class: deep faith in humanity. reason was replaced by admiration for limitations. bourgeois "common sense", the idea of ​​people. sovereignty gave way to the demand for “personal freedom”; admitting the story legality of bourgeois revolutions, French liberals refused to recognize the legitimacy of the revolution. movements of the proletariat. In an atmosphere of deepening contradictions, and then aggravated in the 30s. 19th century (after the revolution of 1830 in France and the parliamentary reform of 1832 in England) antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the working class bourgeois-liberal. reforms carried out everywhere by appropriating lib. The bourgeoisie, the results of the struggle of the working masses and compromises with the monarchical-clerical reaction, are increasingly becoming anti-proletarian. character; L.'s slogans are increasingly becoming a means of camouflaging capitalist. operation. Europe The revolutions of 1848-49 remained unfinished, which means. degrees as a result of the betrayal of lib. bourgeoisie. But they helped clear the ground for the development of capitalism, and it was the bourgeoisie who reaped their fruits; 50-60s 19th century became the climax. period in the development of L. L. reaches its greatest flourishing in the classical period. industrial country capitalism - England, where its ideologists from the very beginning developed ch. arr. economical aspects of L. In the form of the so-called. utilitarianism - a doctrine developed by I. Bentham and a group of "philosophical radicals" (Bowring, Place, James and J. S. Mill), the prosperous middle classes received, along with a carefully thought-out program of bourgeois. reforms designed to create ideal conditions for free enterprise, ethical "justification" unlimited. pursuit of profit - even to the point of usury. In the 40s 19th century Manchester manufacturers, members of parliament Cobden and Bright, during the struggle against the Corn Laws, gave L. a classic. form of free trade. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, in the conditions of world trade and industry. the monopoly of England and the decline of Chartism, Latvia became the dominant form of bourgeois ideology. Liber. the party led by Palmerston and Gladstone gained dominance in politics. life in England. L. subordinates his ideological and political. influence means. part of the petty bourgeoisie and skilled workers united in trade unions. Political the dominance of liberals led to increased social contrasts. With all this, compared to the feud. arbitrariness and constraint, the victory of free enterprise, the establishment of the bourgeoisie. law and order have been historically progress. business, meet the needs of development produces. forces, contributed to the numerical and spiritual growth of the working class, opened up certain legal opportunities for its organization, for the spread of socialism. ideology and its connection with the labor movement. The later this country embarked on the path of bourgeois. transformation, the more developed the proletariat was in it by this time, the faster the cowardice and counter-revolutionary nature of the liberals were revealed. the bourgeoisie, its tendency to compromise with the reaction (for example, in Germany, Italy and a number of other countries). Having strengthened the bourgeoisie. parliamentarism and free competition, Latvia has historically exhausted itself as the dominant (or most influential) bourgeoisie. socio-political flow. His entire worldview came into clear contradiction with the real picture of capitalist development. society, because under imperialism “... some basic properties of capitalism began to turn into their opposite...” (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 22, p. 252). L. in the East arose in the 2nd half. 19 - beginning 20th centuries (China, Japan, India, Turkey) and from the very beginning, due to the connection of the local bourgeoisie with landownership, its progressive features were extremely limited; the liberals' demands concerned Ch. arr. ext. state modernization apparatus, creation of modern army, navy, communications. In the last third 19 - beginning. 20th centuries The old, “classical” light of the period of industrial capitalism is in decline, and light’s adaptation to new conditions begins. L. becomes, first of all, a means of distracting the masses from the revolutionaries. fighting with help is insignificant. concessions to workers. Such is the activity of Lloyd George in England, Giolitti in Italy, and W. Wilson in the USA. Experienced leaders of Latvia (in England, France, and a number of other countries) led the preparations for World War I, the military. offices, post-war redivision of the world, antis. intervention, suppression of revolution. movements, introducing into all this, as V.I. Lenin noted, techniques of social demagoguery and maneuvering developed over decades. Thus, in the conditions of the general crisis of capitalism, the role of one of the unique instruments of the dominant imperialist system was revealed. bourgeoisie. Certain aspects of L.'s practice on the social issue, especially as it relates to the working class, were adopted by right-wing socialists. As the political the influence of the working class of Latvia is gradually disappearing from history. scenes, its functions move to reformism. After the 1st World War and Great Britain. Oct. socialist Revolution, which opened a new era in the history of mankind, the crisis of L. sharply worsened and deepened. L. began to experience a painful reassessment of values ​​(first of all, a crisis of faith in the salvageability and infallibility of bourgeois individualism from the point of view of the interests of the bourgeoisie itself). Based on L. Various concepts of the “third way” of social development arose, supposedly ensuring a combination of the interests of the individual and society, “freedom” and “order” on the basis of private property. Thus, in the period between the 1st and 2nd world wars, attempts based on Keynes’s theory to combine “regulation” of the economy with social legislation (pensions, benefits for the unemployed, etc.) became widespread; these attempts were presented by the bourgeoisie. propaganda as a way to avoid both fascism and communism. Although the anti-communism of liberals, as a rule, led either to capitulation to fascism or to a policy of appeasement, which was tragic. consequences, lib. the concepts of the period between the 1st and 2nd world wars are sometimes considered by monopolies as “too left”, “pro-communist”. Along with Keynesianism, after World War II, neoliberalism became widespread in Germany, England, France, the USA, and Italy. Its center is in Germany (Eiken, Rüstow, etc.). Neoliberals oppose “excessive” government intervention in the economy, arguing that with sufficient space for competition, a “social market economy” takes shape, which supposedly ensures general prosperity. Lit.: Lenin V.I., Liberalism and Democracy, Works, 4th ed., vol. 17; his, Two Utopias, ibid., vol. 18; him, On the liberal and Marxist concept of class struggle, ibid., vol. 19; Was ist liberal?, M?nch., 1910; Ruggiere G. de, Storia del liberalismo europeo, Mil., 1962; Samuel H., Liberalism, L., 1960 (Russian translation - Samuel G., Liberalism, M., 1906); Saunders J., The age of revolution. The rise and decline of liberalism in Europe since 1815, N. Y., 1949; The liberal tradition from Fox to Keynes, L., 1956. I. N. Nemanov. Smolensk Liberalism in Russia is bourgeois in its objective content, ideological, and then political. current, the social base of which was made up of landowners moving towards capitalism. management techniques, middle bourgeoisie, noble and bourgeoisie. intelligentsia. The origins of the first rudimentary ideas of noble art date back to the 60s. 18th century - beginning 19th century In the 40s 19th century began the process of formalizing L. as a special ideological and political. current and its dissociation from democracy. trends. Development of capitalism, class. the interests of the growing bourgeoisie inevitably gave rise to L. and his opposition to autocracy and serfdom. L.'s progressiveness was determined by the objective conditions of the need for bourgeois. transformation of societies. and state building Russia. Since the era of the first revolution. situation and the fall of serfdom in 1861 until February. Revolution of 1917 was a struggle between two sources. tendencies - liberal and democratic - on the fundamental question of the type of bourgeoisie. development of Russia. L., expressing the interests of the growing bourgeoisie, acted as a bearer of the reformist tendency and the landowner-bourgeoisie. evolution according to the Prussian type. Democracy, representing the interests of the peasantry, fought for the revolution. destruction of all feudal serfs. institutions and survivals. Political program and reformist tactics of Latvia, reflecting the desire of the bourgeoisie to eliminate class privileges, constitutional. transformation of absolutism, establishment of the legal system, advancement to power, at the same time testified to its political flabbiness, tendency to compromise with feudal forces. reactions, fear of revolution. L., maintaining the basic features of its ideology, program and tactics, evolved depending on two factors: the strength of the revolution. movements, degrees of bourgeois. the evolution of absolutism and the nature of governments. politics, acquiring certain features on each source. stage. Basic The trend in the evolution of L. was a steadily decreasing, historically and class-limited progressiveness and an invariably increasing anti-nationality and counter-revolutionism. Revolutionaries became the key points in the evolution of L. the situation at the turn of the 50s and 60s. 19th century, first Russian revolution 1905-07, Feb. revolution of 1917 and victory of October. revolution of 1917. The period of decomposition and crisis of feudal-serfdom. building (2nd half of the 18th century - mid-19th century), the first, noble period (1825-61) will liberate. movement became the time of the birth and formation of L. Ideas of progress. enlightenment, criticism of serfdom and autocracy, projects to limit absolutism in the 2nd half. 18th century (S. E. Desnitsky, A. Ya. Polenov, N. I. Novikov, F. V. Krechetov, etc.) expressed the urgent tasks of the bourgeoisie. transformation of Russia. In the era of Decembrism, liber. and democratic trends have evolved as shades release. movements in general are revolutionary. riverbed In the history genesis of L. and bourgeois. democracy era of Enlightenment 18th century. and Decembrism constitutes, therefore, a prehistory. In the 30-40s. 19th century, when the definition took shape. maturity of social relations capitalist. type, and the task of eliminating serfdom and bourgeoisie. transformations become radical and practical. question of all Russian society life, a demarcation between liberalism and democracy is outlined. The nascent L. found its expression in the views of the so-called. Westerners (K.D. Kavelin, V.P. Botkin, T.N. Granovsky, P.V. Annenkov, etc.) and, in a unique form, certain Slavophiles. It still existed within the framework of the general anti-feud. camp opposing the reactionary serfs. ideology. However, already at this time the first differences between liberals and democrats were emerging and gradually intensifying. Aggravation of socio-political antagonisms in revolutionary conditions. situations at the turn of the 50s and 60s. 19th century led to the polarization of politics. forces, to the design of L., its ideology, program and tactics. In society the rise of this period is defined. Liber played a role. movement. In handwritten literature, projects, journalism (magazine "Domestic Notes", "Russian Bulletin", "Atheneum") ideologists of Leningrad (Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, I. K. Babst, A. M. Unkovsky etc.) put forward a program of reforms carried out by the government, while maintaining landownership and the monarchy (the release of peasants with land for ransom, the abolition of class privileges, openness, the creation of representative institutions). The process of Liberal's separation from democracy was reflected in the liberals' break with Kolokol and Sovremennik, and subsequently. fight against L. revolutionary. camps led by N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov. Reforms of the 60-70s 19th century, fear of people. revolution, hostility to revolutionaries. democrats (approval of the arrests of Chernyshevsky, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich and others in 1862), the explosion of chauvinism in connection with the Polish liberation. The uprising of 1863-64 determined Latvia's turn towards reaction, which made it possible for tsarism to weaken the anti-government forces. camp and repel the revolutionaries. onslaught 2nd revolutionary situation at the end 70 - beginning 80s 19th century became a new stage in the development of L., which as before remained within the framework of the legal opposition to the autocracy, capable only of a constitution. “impulses” and a fruitless targeted campaign (see Zemstvo movement). In the addresses of zemstvos and mountains. institutions, in the speeches of lib. The press ("Golos", "Rumour", "Order", "Zemstvo", "Bulletin of Europe", etc.) put forward half-hearted measures both in the field of agriculture. relations (resettlement of peasants, reduction of redemption payments, transformation of the tax system, etc.), and on the issue of state. system (reform of the State Council, involvement of representatives from zemstvos in legislative and advisory activities), which did not affect the foundations of autocracy. L.'s program and tactics created favorable preconditions for maneuvering the government, ultimately making it easier in the beginning. 80s victory of reaction. On the second, bourgeois-democratic. stage will be released. movement of L. finally took shape and took shape in a definition. camp that took the position of monarchist. center in the political grouping. strength At this time, and the further, the more strongly, the reactionary nature of L. manifested itself “... in comparison with the revolutionary element of bourgeois democracy. .." (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 10, p. 431), his inability for independent progressive historical action. With Russia’s entry into the era of imperialism, the strengthening of the economic power of the bourgeoisie and the beginning of the flying stage of the revolutionary movement, with the transformation of the working class into the center of gravity of democratic forces and the formation of the Social Democratic Party, a process of intensification of the Liberal Party, a gradual political and organizational consolidation of its groups, and an intensification of the struggle for influence on the peasantry takes place. , from the 40s of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, did not create his own organizations, although he had the material resources and personnel for this. At the beginning of the 20th century, in the context of revolutionary upsurge, aggravation of the class struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry, the formation of political organizations of Leningrad began. Back in 1899 in Moscow, the “Conversation” circle united about 50 zemstvo leaders of various directions and attracted representatives of the intelligentsia (P. N. Milyukov, P. B. Struve) to publish a number of collections on socio-political problems.In 1901 and 1902, congresses of zemstvo leaders were held, in 1902 the zemstvo people were in alliance with the bourgeoisie. intelligentsia founded a journal in Stuttgart. "Liberation" ed. Struve. In the summer and autumn of 1903, the Union of Liberation and the Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists were created. In the program documents of Latvia, the idea of ​​“people's representation” was carried out within the framework of the constitutional monarchy. building and increasing peasant plots while maintaining landownership. L., fearing the growing popular revolution, sought to gain hegemony in the liberation movement, demagogically acting as a bearer of national interests, and tried to switch the development of events to a reformist path. First Russian the revolution of 1905-07 became a turning point in the evolution of Liberia. It “...remarkably quickly exposed liberalism and showed in practice its counter-revolutionary nature” (ibid., vol. 13, p. 100). L. in the conditions of the ascending development of the revolution from January. until Dec. 1905 and the growing disorganization of the industry showed. political activity, tried to maneuver between tsarism and revolution. people, transfer development to the constitution. way to bargain for reforms beneficial to the bourgeoisie. This is the meaning of the appeal to the people of the July (1905) Zemstvo-City Congress, the decision of September. congress, L.'s tactics in relation to the Bulygin Duma, by Oct. strike of 1905. After the manifesto of October 17. 1905 the top of the bourgeoisie united into the "Union of October 17", and the "Union of Liberation" and the "Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists" created the Constitutional Democratic Party (Cadets) - main. party L. Counter-revolution. character L. openly manifested itself in relation to Dec. armed uprising of 1905. Revolutionary L. contrasted the methods of struggle with the parliamentary, peaceful methods of “organic” work in the Duma. In the inter-revolutionary L. period played an important role in the June Third system as a chapter. opposition parties that promote the constitution. illusions and reforms, his loyal parl. tactics facilitated the implementation of Stolypin's Bonapartist agrarian movement. and Duma politics. L. acted as an active force in politics. and ideological. reaction, which was expressed in Sat. "Milestones" (1909). L. was not able to fight for the victory of the bourgeoisie. revolution, but the incompleteness of capitalist. evolution retained a base for its opposition. speeches against serf owners, absolutism. On the eve and during the First World War, L. preached the ideas of the bourgeoisie. nationalism and pan-Slavism, ideologically substantiating imperialism. Russian interests bourgeoisie, participated in the mobilization of all forces for the needs of the imperialist. war. Defeat of the tsarist troops, households. devastation, growth of revolution. movements, disorganization of the government, unable to wage a war to victory, and the increasing influence of the court camarilla forced L. to take the path of opposition to the autocracy and take the initiative to create in August. 1915 in the 4th Duma of the so-called. "progressive bloc". Victory Feb. The revolution of 1917 marked the beginning of the last stage in the history of L. Liber. parties seized power and became governments. parties striving for the autocracy of the bourgeoisie, for the continuation of the war, for the defeat of the Soviets and the Bolshevik Party. The Cadet Party united around itself all the forces of the bourgeois-landlord-general counter-revolution, which was especially clearly manifested in the Kornilov rebellion (see Kornilovshchina). Oct. the revolution led L. to ideological and political. collapse. The bourgeoisie, that is. part of lib. intelligentsia, responded with sabotage and counter-revolution. speeches for the establishment of Sov. authorities. During the civil years war of L., united with other forces of counter-revolution, with the help of international intervention. imperialism, tried to destroy the Sov. power. Many leaders of Latvia (Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, etc.) took an active part in the White Guard. pr-vah, and after civil. wars became the ideologists and organizers of the antis. struggle in emigration. Liberal-bourgeois. party open participation in the armed forces. fight against the Sov. The authorities placed themselves outside the framework of the Soviet Union. legality and owls democracy. A peculiar manifestation of the ideology of Latvia in the conditions of the first years of NEP was the so-called. Smenovekhov movement, which sought to restore capitalism “from within” the Soviets. building, based on its internal. rebirth. L. throughout its history was not in program-tactical. in a single and homogeneous movement. In its channel with the ser. 19th century before the beginning 20th century there were various movements that reflected the interests of certain layers of the bourgeoisie. In 1905 the process of partitioning began. design of various areas of L. Some desks. The groups that arose in 1905 (the Party of Legal Order, the Progressive Economic Party, etc.) did not exist for long, and the factions of Latvia were soon distributed among the Octobrists, Progressives, and Cadets. The histories of these parties, primarily the Cadet party, collectively constitute the history of Russian history. L. in the period 1905-17, With all inter-parties. and intrapart. disagreements (Miliukov’s criticism of the authors of “Vekhi” for self-exposure dangerous for L., Maklakov’s accusation of Miliukov in flirting with democracy and the discussion between them on tactical issues, etc.) all parties and movements of L. were united by fear of the revolution. victory of the people, the desire for a compromise with the absolutist-feudal regime. reaction, active participation in the fight against democracy. and socialist revolution. If there is a specific characteristics of these same creatures. features were characteristic of L. in the national. district The scope and maturity of L. were determined by the level of socio-political. development of national district. In con. 19 - beginning 20th centuries in Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus and a number of other regions, liberal-nationalist ones took shape. parties and groupings of the local bourgeoisie (National Democratic Party in Poland, Ukrainian Democratic Party, Belarusian Community, Jadidism in Central Asia, Musavatists in Transcaucasia, etc.). They were in opposition to tsarism and sought to achieve self-government and equal rights with the Russians. bourgeoisie. In the conditions of imperialism and deployment, national liberation. struggle of the peoples bourgeois-nationalist. L. is losing progress. traits. His dual policy boiled down to attempts to achieve concessions from tsarism and with the help of nationalists. demagogy to distract workers from socio-political. struggle, to split their alliance with the Russians. proletariat. After Oct. liberal-nationalist revolution. parties are included in the common front of counter-revolution and are actively fighting against the Soviets. authorities. Its main principles were manifested in the ideology, program, tactics and organization of politics in Russia. features and characteristics: a relatively late separation from democracy and a rapid turn to counter-revolution, that is. the proportion of the noble element, activities within the legal opposition and the later formation of parties. groups, fear of revolution, tendency to compromise with feudal forces. reactions. These features of L. had their origins in the weakness and non-revolutionary nature of the Russians. bourgeoisie, in relation to strength and survivability of feudal remains. antiquity. They intensified with the growth of class. struggle, with the uprising of the proletariat, which pushed aside L. and became the hegemon of all democracies. strength Revolutionary democracy exposed L. and his conciliatory policy. This line is at the flyover stage. will release. The movement was continued and enriched by the Bolshevik Party. V.I. Lenin gave scientific. analysis of sources evolution of L., its ideology, program and tactics, revealing the commonality of the most significant features of L. of different periods. Assessment of L., his social and political role was one of the most important points of disagreement between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Lenin's doctrine of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeoisie. revolution and the struggle of Bolshevism for its implementation undermined the influence of L. and his opportunist. allies in the labor movement - the Mensheviks. The Bolshevik struggle against Latvia was a necessary condition for the revolution. and democratic educating the working masses, preparing them for the struggle at hand. proletariat for a new, democratic and socialist Russia. L. tried to concepts to justify your program and tactics. Liber. historiography (Milyukov, Struve, P. G. Vinogradov, etc.), based on reactionary-idealistic. theories, depicted political. the history of Russia as the history of the consistent development of the reformist activities of the autocracy and the growing progressiveness of Latvia, while ignoring the decisive role of the class. struggle. Lenin's criticism of lib. historiography played a big role in exposing the ideology of L. Oct. The revolution of 1917 meant not only the collapse of the ideology, program and tactics of Latvia, but also revealed the complete inconsistency of its historical and political. doctrines. Lit.: Lenin V.I., Persecutors of Zemstvo and Annibals of Liberalism, Works, 4th ed., vol. 5; his, Two tactics of social democracy in democracy. revolutions, ibid., vol. 9; his, Experience of classification of Russian. political parties, ibid., vol. 11; him, Regarding the anniversary, in the same place, vol. 17; his, “Peasant reform” and the proletarian cross. revolution, ibid.; him, In Memory of Herzen, in the same place, vol. 18; him, Politich. parties in Russia, ibid.; his, On the liberal and Marxist concept of class. struggle, ibid., vol. 19. See also Reference volume, part 1, p. 307-11. Belokonsky I., Zemstvo and the Constitution, M., 1910; Bogucharsky V., From the history of politics. struggle in the 70s. and 80s XIX century The People's Will Party, its origin, fate and death, M., 1912; Veselovsky B., History of the zemstvo for forty years, vol. 1-4, St. Petersburg, 1911; Glinsky B:, The struggle for the constitution. 1612-1862, St. Petersburg, 1908; Jordan N., Constitution. movement of the 60s, St. Petersburg, 1906; his, Zemsky liberalism, 2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906; Karyshev N., Zemstvo petitions. 1865-1884, M.. 1900; Kornilov A., Society. movement under Alexander II, M., 1909; his, Course of Russian History of the 19th century, 2nd ed., part 3, M., 1918; Lemke M., Essays will liberate. movements of the "sixties", St. Petersburg, 1908; Martov Yu., Society. and mental trends in Russia, 1870-1905, L.-M., 1924; Plekhanov G., The unsuccessful history of the Narodnaya Volya party, Soch., vol. 24; Svatikov S., Society. movement in Russia, Rostov n/D., 1905; Yakushkin V., State. government and government projects reforms in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1906. Berlin P., Rus. bourgeoisie in old and new times, M., 1922; Druzhinin N., Decembrist Nikita Muravyov, M., 1933; him, Mosk. nobility and reform of 1861, "IAN USSR. Series of History and Philosophy", 1948, vol. 5, K" 1; Nechkina M.V., Decembrist Movement, vol. 1-2, M., 1955; Rosenthal V. N., Ideological centers of the liberal movement in Russia on the eve of the revolutionary situation, in the collection: Revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859-1861, M., 1963; Sladkevich N., Opposition movement of the nobility during the years of the revolutionary situation, there zhe, M., 1962; Usakina T., Herzen’s article “Very dangerous!!!” and the controversy around “accusatory literature” in journalism 1857-1861, M., 1960; Fedosov I., Revolutionary movement in Russia in second quarter of the 19th century, M., 1958; Kheifets M., The second revolutionary situation in Russia, M., 1963; Zayonchkovsky P., Abolition of serfdom in Russia, M., 1954; Kozmin V., From the history of Russian . illegal press. Newspaper "Common Deal", in the book: Ist. sb., vol. 3, Leningrad, 1934; Levin Sh., Social movement in Russia in the 60-70s of the 19th century, M ., 1958; Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR, vol. 1, M., 1955, chapter 8; vol. 2, M., 1960, chapters 2-3; vol. 3, M., 1963, chapter 1, 4, 5; Pokrovsky M. N., Essays on the history of the revolutionary. movements in Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries, 2nd ed., M., 1927; Chermensky E., Bourgeoisie and tsarism in the revolution of 1905-1907, M.-L., 1939; him, Feb. bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917 in Russia, M., 1959. See also lit. to the articles “Legal Marxism”, “Zemstvo Movement”, “Constitutional Democratic Party “Progressive Bloc””, etc. M. I. Kheifets. Moscow.

LIBERAL

LIBERAL

(Latin liberalis, from liber - civilly free). A free thinker who stands for a free form of government.

Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. - Chudinov A.N., 1910 .

LIBERAL

lat. liberalis, from liber, civilly free. A free thinker who stands for a free form of government.

Explanation of 25,000 foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language, with the meaning of their roots. - Mikhelson A.D., 1865 .

LIBERAL

free, free-thinking, agreeing with liberalism.

A complete dictionary of foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language. - Popov M., 1907 .

Liberal

1) related to liberalism, characteristic of it;

2) showing liberalism 3.

New dictionary of foreign words. - by EdwART,, 2009 .

Liberal

relating to a liberal, liberalism, characteristic of them.

Large dictionary of foreign words. - Publishing House "IDDK", 2007 .

Liberal

oh, oh, flax, flax ( fr. liberal lat. līberālis free).
1. full f. Related to liberalism. Liberal Party.
2. Manifesting liberalism. L. approach to knowledge assessment.
Liberal- the same as liberalism.

Explanatory dictionary of foreign words by L. P. Krysin. - M: Russian language, 1998 .

Antonyms:

See what “LIBERAL” is in other dictionaries:

Cm … Synonym dictionary

liberal- oh, oh. libéral, e adj. 1. Rel. to liberal and liberalism (political movement), expressing liberalism. BAS 1. The main ... parties in France are: Royalists Constitutional, Ministerial, Liberal, opponents of the hereditary line, ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

LIBERAL, liberal, liberal; liberal, liberal, liberal. 1. adj. to liberalism; imbued with liberalism. Liberal speeches. Liberal reforms. Liberal chatter. 2. only full. The names of some political organizations and... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

LIBERAL, oh, oh; flax, flax. 1. full Relating to liberalism (1 value). Liberal Party. L. activist. 2. Showing liberalism (in 2 meanings). L. approach to what n. | noun liberality, and, women. (to 2 digits). Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

liberal- terribly liberal... Dictionary of Russian Idioms

liberal- oh, oh; flax, flax 1) full. f. Relating to liberalism. Liberal Party. Liberal newspaper. 2) Showing liberalism. Liberal approach to knowledge assessment. 3) outdated Imbued with liberalism. The secretary was liberal, even radical... ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

I adj. 1. ratio with noun liberalism I, liberalization, associated with them 2. Carrying out liberalization. II adj. 1. Showing excessive tolerance, harmful condescension, connivance. 2. Characteristic of liberalism [liberalism II 2.],… … Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal,... ... Forms of words

Conservative intolerant reactionary routine... Dictionary of antonyms

Books

• Liberal conservatism. History and modernity. The book contains a comprehensive analysis of the processes of genesis, formation and evolution of Russian liberal conservatism as a system of ideas and policies, organization and tactics; his…
• Liberal redistribution of the Russian agricultural sector. Book 3. Market domestication of the Russian peasant, V. I. Staroverov, A. N. Zakharov. The series of books under the general title Liberal redistribution of the agro-sphere of Russia highlights the social, economic and political contradictions of modern times generated by the voluntarism of perestroika...

" and "liberal" come from the Latin liberalis and literally mean "having to freedom." When we talk about a liberal as a supporter of a socio-political movement, it is assumed that this person stands on a platform that welcomes the deepening and development of political freedoms in the broadest sense of the word. As a rule, liberal ideology unites supporters of democratic parliamentarism, as well as those who stand for freedom of private enterprise.

In everyday life, the label “liberal” is most often given to those who show unnecessary and inappropriate tolerance for other people’s behavior that violates generally accepted norms and rules. It is believed, for example, that excess in the upbringing of the younger generation negatively affects the development of a teenager’s personality. Often the public is asked to put an end to liberalism in relation to criminals and malicious violators of social norms.

in politics

Who can be classified as liberal in the field of activity? We are talking about public figures who support and fully approve of the idea of ​​​​limiting any interference of government agencies in social relations. The main principles of the liberal value system were formed at a time when bourgeois relations based on free enterprise arose and strengthened in society.

A liberal considers personal, economic and political freedom to be the highest priority in social and political life. For a liberal, rights and freedoms become a kind of basis and starting point for the formation of a political position. According to liberal politicians, it is the free development of any social that makes it possible to build a truly democratic state.

The ideal of many Western politicians is liberal democracy. However, today there is little left in it of the former free-thinking and freethinking. The main emphasis of Western liberals is not so much on expanding the actual freedoms of citizens, but on removing restrictions that hinder the development of the private sector. Political scientists and sociologists note that Western traditions are penetrating more and more deeply into the economy, politics and culture of developing countries.

The concept of “liberalism” appeared at the beginning of the 19th century. Initially, liberals were the name given to a group of nationalist deputies in the Cortes, the Spanish parliament. Then this concept entered all European languages, but with a slightly different meaning.

The essence of liberalism remains unchanged throughout the history of its existence. Liberalism is an affirmation of the value of the human person, its rights and freedoms. From the ideology of the Enlightenment, liberalism borrowed the idea of ​​natural human rights, therefore, among the inalienable rights of the individual, liberals included and include the right to life, liberty, happiness and property, with the greatest attention paid to private property and freedom, since it is believed that property ensures freedom, which in its turn turn is a prerequisite for success in the life of an individual, the prosperity of society and the state.

Freedom is inseparable from responsibility and ends where the freedom of another person begins. The “rules of the game” in society are fixed in laws adopted by a democratic state, which proclaims political freedoms (of conscience, speech, meetings, associations, etc.). The economy is a market economy based on private property and competition. Such an economic system is the embodiment of the principle of freedom and a condition for the successful economic development of the country.

The first historical type of worldview containing the above-mentioned set of ideas was classical liberalism (late 18th - 70-80s of the 19th century). It can be seen as a direct continuation of the political philosophy of the Enlightenment. It is not for nothing that John Locke is called the “father of liberalism,” and the creators of classical liberalism, Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, are considered the largest representatives of the late Enlightenment in England. Throughout the 19th century, liberal ideas were developed by John Stuart Mill (England), Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville (France), Wilhelm von Humboldt and Lorenz Stein (Germany).

Classical liberalism differs from the ideology of the Enlightenment, first of all, in the lack of connection with revolutionary processes, as well as a negative attitude towards revolutions in general and the Great French Revolution in particular. Liberals accept and justify the social reality that has developed in Europe after the French Revolution, and actively strive to improve it, believing in limitless social progress and the power of the human mind.

Classical liberalism includes a number of principles and concepts. Its philosophical basis is the nominalistic postulate about the priority of the individual over the general. Accordingly, the principle of individualism is central: the interests of the individual are higher than the interests of society and the state. Therefore, the state cannot trample on human rights and freedoms, and the individual has the right to defend them against attacks by other individuals, organizations, society and the state.

If we consider the principle of individualism from the point of view of its correspondence to the actual state of affairs, it should be stated that it is false. In no state can the interests of an individual be higher than public and state interests. The reverse situation would mean the death of the state. It is curious that this was first noticed by one of the founders of classical liberalism, I. Bentham. He wrote that "natural, inalienable and sacred rights never existed" since they were incompatible with the state; “...citizens, demanding them, would ask only for anarchy...”. However, the principle of individualism has played a highly progressive role in the development of Western civilization. And in our time, it still gives individuals the legal right to defend their interests in the face of the state.

The principle of utilitarianism is a further development and concretization of the principle of individualism. I. Bentham, who formulated it, believed that society is a fictitious body consisting of individuals. The common good is also a fiction. The real interest of society is nothing more than the sum of the interests of its constituent individuals. Therefore, any actions of politicians and any institutions should be assessed solely from the point of view of the extent to which they contribute to reducing suffering and increasing the happiness of individual people. Constructing a model of an ideal society, according to I. Bentham, is an unnecessary and dangerous activity from the point of view of possible consequences.

Based on the principles of individualism and utilitarianism, classical liberalism proposed a very specific model of society and state as optimal. The state should not interfere in socio-economic relations: it is more likely to disrupt harmony than to contribute to its establishment.

The concept of the rule of law corresponds to the concept of public self-regulation in the sphere of politics. The goal of such a state is formal equality of opportunity for citizens, the means is the adoption of relevant laws and ensuring their strict implementation by everyone, including government officials. At the same time, the material well-being of each individual person is considered his personal matter, and not the sphere of concern of the state. Alleviation of the extremes of poverty is expected through private charity. The essence of the rule of law is briefly expressed by the formula: “the law is above all.”

A legal “small state” must be secular. Classical liberalism advocated the separation of church and state. Supporters of this ideology considered religion to be a private matter of the individual. We can say that any liberalism, including classical, is generally indifferent to religion, which is not considered either a positive or a negative value.

Liberal party programs usually included the following demands: separation of powers; approval of the principle of parliamentarism, that is, the transition to such forms of state organization in which the government is formed by parliament; proclamation and implementation of democratic rights and freedoms; separation of church and state.

The second idea borrowed by social liberalism from social democracy is the idea of ​​social justice, understood as the right of everyone to a decent life. A concrete way of its implementation was also the broad social programs proposed by the Social Democrats, which involved the redistribution of profits from the rich to the poor through the system of state taxes.

Social insurance for illness, unemployment, old age, insurance medicine, free education, etc. - all these programs, gradually introduced and expanded in the countries of Western civilization during the late 19th - 70th years of the 20th century, existed and continue to exist thanks to the introduction of a progressive tax scale. This system of taxation requires that people with more income or capital pay a higher percentage of that income or capital than people with less means of living. Social programs simultaneously promote economic development because they expand effective demand.

Currently, the influence of liberalism as a political worldview is growing. This is due both to the resurrection by neoconservatives of a number of fundamental provisions of classical liberalism, and to the collapse of the USSR, the world system of socialism, and the transition of its European countries to a liberal economic model and Western-style political democracy, in the establishment of which liberalism and liberal parties played a decisive role. At the same time, the crisis of the liberal parties continues.

Socialism

The concept of “socialism,” which came into general use in the third decade of the 19th century, was intended to designate a direction of social thought that sought to develop a fundamentally new model of the structure of society as a whole based on the transformation of socio-economic relations. It is difficult to give a brief, meaningful definition of this ideology, since the concept of socialism unites a large number of very different concepts that can be divided into two large groups: socialist and communist.

The concepts of the first group assume that a decent life for workers can be achieved in a society based on a combination of public and private ownership of the means of production, and universal absolute equality is not necessary or desirable. The concepts of the second group propose to create a society based exclusively on public forms of ownership, which presupposes complete social and property equality of citizens.

The characteristics of socialist ideology, taking into account the existence of the two directions of socialist thought outlined above, can be given as follows. Socialism presupposes criticism of bourgeois society from the standpoint of a certain ideal, “located” in the thought of socialists in the future. The formulation of the main features of the future society is given from the position of the most disadvantaged part of the population, who earn their living by their labor. The society of social justice itself presupposes the essential role of social forms of ownership, the bringing together of the extremes of wealth and poverty, and the replacement of competition with solidarity and mutual assistance. The new society is conceived as capable of ensuring faster and more comprehensive social progress than the bourgeois one.

The first historical type of socialist ideology is humanistic socialism of the first half of the 19th century, also called utopian socialism (at present, the second name seems unfounded, since Marxism also turned out to be a utopia, albeit in a different sense). Its founders and largest representatives are Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier (France), Robert Owen (England). Socialism was called humanistic because its creators, formulating the main features of a society of social justice, proceeded from the interests of man in general, and not of a representative of any class or layer, although the implementation of the proposed model was supposed to bring the greatest benefit to working people.

The specific systems of thought of the founders of humanistic socialism were different, but in general, a society of social justice was conceived as based on a combination of public and private forms of property, on class cooperation. It was assumed that social and property inequality would continue to be maintained due to the unequal contribution - financial and labor - to the development of the enterprise, with the different roles of representatives of different social strata in society. The transition to a new social organization was conceived as gradual and occurring exclusively peacefully. The following were proposed as means of transition: appealing to those in power, to representatives of big business, creating exemplary enterprises based on new principles, and promoting positive experience. It was the designated means of transition to a society of social justice that gave rise to the name “utopian socialism.”

In the 40s of the 19th century, Marxism emerged, also called workers' or economic socialism, as well as scientific communism. This ideology emerged on the basis of Karl Marx's analysis of the economic relations of bourgeois society in the context of the growth of the labor movement. The main tenets of Marxism are as follows.

Capitalist society will inevitably lose its economic efficiency due to the inherent contradiction between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation. To eliminate this contradiction and open up space for the development of productive forces, private ownership of the means of production should be eliminated. Accordingly, the future society of social justice will simultaneously become the most economically efficient. In it there will be public ownership of the means of production, there will be no classes, exploitation will disappear, complete social and property equality will be established, the state will cease to exist as a political organization of the economically dominant class (it will be replaced by public self-government), creative self-realization of every person will become possible.

The transition to a new society is possible only through class struggle and social revolution, which will be carried out by the working class, led by the communist party, armed with knowledge of the laws of social development. Immediately after the victory of the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be established, which will become a new, highest form of democracy, since by that time the proletariat will constitute the majority of the population in society.

The development of Marxism in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries led to the emergence of two modern types of socialist ideology: Marxism-Leninism and the ideology of social democracy. Marxism-Leninism, also called Bolshevism and scientific communism, arose as an adaptation of Marxism to the conditions of Russia and to the practice of socialist construction after the victory of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The parties that adopted this ideology began, as a rule, to be called communist.

An attempt to implement the Marxist model, carried out in the USSR and other countries of the world socialist system, led to the emergence of a society in which the state economy was controlled from a single center in the absence of political democracy. This was another attempt to overcome the crisis of liberalism and the liberal economic model. However, the created society did not become either more humane or more economically efficient than the capitalist one in the long term, and therefore left the historical arena.

The ideology of social democracy, formed in the 90s of the 19th century, arose as a criticism and revision of Marxism. Its main provisions were developed by the German social democrat Eduard Bernstein and gradually accepted by international social democracy, although not without a sharp struggle of opinions. There was a rejection of such fundamental provisions of Marxism as the social (socialist) revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the complete replacement of private ownership of the means of production with public property.

A revision of Marxism turned out to be possible and inevitable, since in the last decades of the 19th century it became obvious that the position of the working class was not worsening with the development of capitalism, as K. Marx predicted, but was improving. From this fact, E. Bernstein drew far-reaching conclusions that have not lost their significance today, and developed a program for building democratic socialism.

Since economic development under capitalism leads to an increase in the material well-being of workers, the task of social democratic parties should be to improve the existing society, and not to eliminate it and replace it with another that is fundamentally different from the bourgeois one.

A necessary condition for such improvement is political democracy. E. Bernstein drew attention to the fact that the consistent implementation of the basic liberal principles of the political system leads to the elimination of the political dominance of the bourgeoisie if the working class is able to organize itself and constantly support its party in elections.

Thus, it was necessary to fight for the deepening of political democracy, the victory of the working class party in parliamentary elections, and the formation of a social democratic government. Such a government, with the support of the parliamentary majority, must steadily implement a program of reforms extended over time, aimed at improving the financial situation of the working class, increasing its social security, raising the cultural and educational level, etc.

For this purpose, as well as for the sake of increasing economic efficiency, it was necessary to gradually carry out partial nationalization of industry, especially unprofitable enterprises and industries, establish state regulation of the private capitalist sector, develop and implement broad social programs based on the redistribution of profits from the wealthy to the poor through the tax system.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the main values ​​of international social democracy continue to be solidarity, freedom, equality, political democracy, a state-regulated market mixed economy, and social protection of the population. A gradual increase in the public sector of the economy is no longer considered feasible.

At present, despite the fact that social democratic parties periodically come to power in European countries, replacing neoconservatives, the crisis of social democratic ideology cannot be considered overcome, since international socialism has no new constructive ideas capable of updating the program and practice of democratic socialism. there is no democracy.

(French libéralisme) - a philosophical, political and economic theory, as well as an ideology, which is based on the position that individual human freedoms are the legal basis of society and the economic order.

Basic principles of liberalism

The ideal of liberalism is a society with freedom of action for everyone, the free exchange of politically relevant information, limited power of the state and church, the rule of law, private property and freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many of the principles that had been the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of monarchs to power and the role of religion as the only source of knowledge. The fundamental principles of liberalism include individual rights (to life, personal liberty and property); equal rights and universal equality before the law; free market economy; a government elected in fair elections; transparency of government power. The function of state power is reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic governance, while protecting the rights of minorities and individual citizens.
Some modern movements of liberalism are more tolerant of government regulation of free markets in order to ensure equality of opportunity to achieve success, universal education and reducing income disparities. Proponents of this view believe that the political system should contain elements of a welfare state, including government unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free healthcare.

According to the views of liberals, state power exists for the benefit of the people subject to it, and the political leadership of the country should be carried out on the basis of the consent of the majority of those governed. Today, the political system that is most in tune with the beliefs of liberals is liberal democracy.

Review

Etymology and historical usage

The word "liberal" comes from the Latin. liber (“free”). Titus Livius, in his History of Rome from the Founding of the City, describes the struggle for freedom between the plebeian and patrician classes. Marcus Aurelius in his “Discourses” writes about the idea “of a state, with a law equal for everyone, where equality and an equal right to speech are recognized; also about autocracy, which most of all respects the freedom of its subjects.” During the Italian Renaissance, this struggle was renewed between supporters of free city-states and the pope. Niccolò Machiavelli, in his Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, outlined the principles of republican government. John Locke in England and the thinkers of the French Enlightenment framed the struggle for freedom in terms of human rights.

The word “liberalism” came into the Russian language at the end of the 18th century from French (French libéralisme) and meant “freethinking.” The negative connotation is still preserved in the meaning of “excessive tolerance, harmful condescension, connivance” (“New Dictionary of the Russian Language” edited by T. F. Efremov). In English, the word liberalism also originally had a negative connotation, but has lost it.

The American Revolutionary War gave rise to the first nation to develop a constitution based on the idea of ​​a liberal state, especially the idea that government governs by the consent of the governed. The French bourgeoisie also attempted to create a government based on liberal principles during the French Revolution. The authors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, who were in opposition to Spanish absolutism, were probably the first to coin the word "liberal" to designate supporters of a political movement. Since the end of the 18th century, liberalism has become one of the leading ideologies in almost all developed countries.

Many initial attempts to implement liberal ideas were only partially successful and sometimes even led to the opposite results (dictatorships). Slogans of freedom and equality were taken up by adventurers. Sharp conflicts arose between supporters of different interpretations of liberal principles. Wars, revolutions, economic crises and government scandals provoked mass disappointment in ideals. For these reasons, the word “liberalism” has had different meanings in different periods. Over time, a more systematic understanding of the foundations of this ideology came, which became the foundation for one of the most widespread political systems in the world at the moment - liberal democracy.

Forms of liberalism

Initially, liberalism was based on the fact that all rights should be in the hands of individuals and legal entities, and the state should exist solely to protect these rights (classical liberalism). Modern liberalism has significantly expanded the scope of the classical interpretation and includes many currents, between which there are deep contradictions and sometimes conflicts arise. These trends are reflected, in particular, in such a key document as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. To be precise with terminology, in this article “political liberalism” means the movement for liberal democracy and against absolutism or authoritarianism; “economic liberalism” - for private property and against government regulation; “cultural liberalism” - for personal freedom and against restrictions on it for reasons of patriotism or religion; "social liberalism" - for equality of opportunity and against economic exploitation. Modern liberalism in most developed countries is a mixture of all these forms. In third world countries, “third generation liberalism” - the movement for a healthy living environment and against colonialism - often comes to the fore.

Political liberalism

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the foundation of law and society and that public institutions exist to help give individuals real power without kowtowing to elites. This belief in political philosophy and political science is called “methodological individualism.” It is based on the idea that each person knows best what is best for him. The English Magna Carta (1215) provides an example of a political document that extends some individual rights further than the prerogative of the monarch. The key point is the social contract, according to which laws are made with the consent of society for its benefit and protection of social norms, and every citizen is subject to these laws. Particular emphasis is placed on the rule of law, in particular, liberalism assumes that the state has sufficient power to enforce it. Modern political liberalism also includes the condition of universal suffrage, regardless of sex, race or property; Liberal democracy is considered the most preferable system.

Economic liberalism

Economic or classical liberalism advocates individual rights to property and freedom of contract. The motto of this form of liberalism is “free private enterprise.” Preference is given to capitalism based on the principle of laissez-faire, which means the abolition of government subsidies and legal barriers to trade. Economic liberals believe that the market does not need government regulation. Some of them are ready to allow government oversight of monopolies and cartels, others argue that market monopolization arises only as a consequence of government action. Economic liberalism argues that the prices of goods and services should be determined by the free choices of individuals, i.e., market forces. Some accept the presence of market forces even in areas where the state traditionally maintains a monopoly, such as security or justice. Economic liberalism views economic inequality, which arises from unequal bargaining power, as a natural result of competition in the absence of coercion. Currently, this form is most expressed in libertarianism; other varieties are minarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Cultural liberalism

Cultural liberalism focuses on individual rights related to consciousness and lifestyle, including issues such as sexual, religious, academic freedom, and protection from government interference in personal life. As John Stuart Mill said in his essay “On Liberty”: “The only object which justifies the interference of men, individually or collectively, in the activities of other men, is self-defense. It is permissible to exercise power over a member of a civilized society against his will only for the purpose of preventing harm to others.” Cultural liberalism, to varying degrees, objects to government regulation of such areas as literature and the arts, as well as such issues as academia, gambling, prostitution, the age of consent for sexual relations, abortion, the use of contraception, euthanasia, alcohol and other drugs. The Netherlands is probably the country with the highest level of cultural liberalism today, which, however, does not prevent the country from proclaiming a policy of multiculturalism.

Social liberalism

Social liberalism arose at the end of the 19th century in many developed countries under the influence of utilitarianism. Some liberals adopted, in part or in whole, Marxism and the socialist theory of exploitation, and came to the conclusion that the state should use its power to restore social justice. Thinkers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler explained that all individuals, as the foundation of society, must have access to basic needs such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful large-scale events beyond their control to realize their abilities. Such positive rights, which are granted by society, are qualitatively different from classical negative rights, the enforcement of which requires non-interference from others. Proponents of social liberalism argue that without a guarantee of positive rights, the fair implementation of negative rights is impossible, since in practice the low-income population sacrifices their rights for the sake of survival, and the courts are more often inclined in favor of the rich. Social liberalism supports the introduction of some restrictions on economic competition. He also expects the government to provide social protection to the population (through taxes) to create conditions for the development of all talented people, to prevent social unrest and simply for the "common good."

There is a fundamental contradiction between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals believe that positive rights inevitably violate negative ones and are therefore unacceptable. They see the function of the state as limited mainly to issues of law, security and defense. From their point of view, these functions already require the presence of a strong centralized state power. On the contrary, social liberals believe that the main task of the state is social protection and ensuring social stability: providing food and housing to those in need, healthcare, school education, pensions, care for children, the disabled and the elderly, assistance to victims of natural disasters, protection of minorities, prevention crime, support for science and art. This approach makes it impossible to impose large-scale restrictions on the government. Despite the unity of the ultimate goal - personal freedom - economic and social liberalism radically diverge in the means to achieve it. Right-wing and conservative movements often tend to favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism. Leftist movements tend to emphasize cultural and social liberalism.
Some researchers point out that the opposition between “positive” and “negative” rights is in fact imaginary, since ensuring “negative” rights actually also requires public costs (for example, maintaining courts to protect property).

Third generation liberalism

Third generation liberalism was a consequence of the post-war struggle of third world countries against colonialism. Today it is more associated with certain aspirations than with legal norms. Its goal is to fight against the concentration of power, material resources and technology in a group of developed countries. Activists of this movement emphasize the collective right of society to peace, to self-determination, to economic development and to access to the commonwealth (natural resources, scientific knowledge, cultural monuments). These rights belong to the “third generation” and are reflected in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Defenders of collective international human rights also pay close attention to issues of international environmental and humanitarian assistance.

In all of the above forms of liberalism, it is assumed that there must be a balance between the responsibilities of government and individuals and that the function of the state should be limited to those tasks that cannot be adequately performed by the private sector. All forms of liberalism aim to provide legislative protection for human dignity and personal autonomy, and all argue that the removal of restrictions on individual activity improves society.

Development of liberal thought

Origins

The desire for personal freedom has been characteristic of representatives of all nations in all centuries. Vivid examples are city-states from Ancient Greece to European ones with the principle - “the air of the city makes free”, the political system of which included many elements of the rule of law and democracy in combination with freedom of private enterprise.

Liberalism has its roots in humanism, which during the Renaissance challenged the power of the Catholic Church (which resulted in revolutions: the Dutch bourgeois revolution), the English Glorious Revolution (1688), during which the Whigs asserted their right to choose a king, etc. The latter became the forerunner of the view that supreme power should belong to the people. Full-fledged liberal movements emerged during the Enlightenment in France, England and colonial America. Their opponents were absolute monarchy, mercantilism, orthodox religions and clericalism. These liberal movements also pioneered the concept of individual rights based on constitutionalism and self-government through freely chosen representatives.

The idea that free individuals could become the basis of a stable society was put forward by John Locke. His Two Treatises on Government (1690) formulated two fundamental liberal principles: economic freedom as the right to personal ownership and enjoyment of property, and intellectual freedom, including freedom of conscience. The basis of his theory is the idea of ​​natural rights: to life, to personal liberty and to private property, which was the forerunner of modern human rights. When citizens enter into society, they enter into a social contract in which they relinquish their power to the government to protect their natural rights. In his views, Locke defended the interests of the English bourgeoisie; in particular, he did not extend freedom of conscience to Catholics, or human rights to peasants and servants. Locke also disapproved of democracy. Nevertheless, a number of provisions of his teaching formed the basis of the ideology of the American and French revolutions.

In continental Europe, the development of the doctrine of the universal equality of citizens before the law, to which even monarchs must obey, was carried out by Charles Louis Montesquieu. Montesquieu considered separation of powers and federalism to be the main tools for limiting state power. His followers, the economists Jean-Baptiste Say and Destutt de Tracy, were passionate promoters of "market harmony" and the principle of laissez-faire economics. Of the thinkers of the Enlightenment, two figures had the greatest influence on liberal thought: Voltaire, who advocated a constitutional monarchy, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who developed the doctrine of natural freedom. Both philosophers, in different forms, defended the idea that the natural freedom of the individual can be limited, but its essence cannot be destroyed. Voltaire emphasized the importance of religious tolerance and the inadmissibility of torture and humiliation of human dignity.

In his treatise On the Social Contract (1762), Rousseau brought new understanding to this concept. He noticed that many people find themselves part of society without having property, i.e., the social contract simply assigns property rights to its actual owners. For such an agreement to be legitimate, in exchange for his independence, a person must receive benefits that only society can provide him. Rousseau considered education to be one of these benefits, which allows people to best realize their abilities, and at the same time makes people law-abiding citizens. Another good is collective republican freedom, which the individual gains through identification with the nation and national interests. Thanks to this identification, an educated person himself limits his freedom, since it becomes in his interests. The will of the nation as a whole can be realized only under the condition of self-determination of peoples. Thus, the social contract leads to national consent, national will and national unity. These ideas became a key element of the Declaration of the National Convention during the French Revolution and the views of such liberal American thinkers as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Along with the French Enlightenment, important contributions to liberalism were made by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Adam Smith. David Hume argued that the fundamental (natural) laws of human behavior dictate moral standards that can neither be limited nor suppressed. Influenced by these views, Kant gave an ethical justification for human rights without reference to religion (as was the case before him). According to his teaching, these rights are based on natural scientific laws and objective truth.

Adam Smith developed the theory that moral life and economic activity were possible without government directives and that the strongest nations were those in which citizens were free to exercise their own initiative. He called for an end to feudal and mercantile regulation, patents and monopolies that arose thanks to state protection. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), he developed a theory of motivation that brought personal material interest into harmony with the unregulated social order. In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), he argued that, under certain conditions, a free market is capable of natural self-regulation and is capable of achieving greater productivity than a market with many restrictions. He assigned the government to solve problems that could not be reconciled with the thirst for profit, for example, preventing fraud or the illegal use of force. His theory of taxation was that taxes should not harm the economy and that the percentage rate of tax should be constant.

Revolutionary liberalism

The idea that ordinary people should go about their business without being dictated by monarchs, aristocracies, or churches remained largely a theory until the American and French revolutions. All later liberal revolutionaries followed these two examples to one degree or another.

In colonial America, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams convinced their countrymen to rebel in the name of life, personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—almost a Locke quote, but with one important modification: Jefferson replaced Locke's word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness." Thus, the main goal of the revolution was a republic based on personal freedom and rule with the consent of the governed. James Madison believed that to ensure effective self-government and protect the rights of economic minorities, a system of balances and checks was necessary. It is reflected in the US Constitution (1787): a balance between federal and regional authorities; separation of powers into executive, legislative and judicial branches; bicameral parliament. Civilian control was introduced over the army and measures were taken to return officers to civilian life after serving. Thus, the concentration of power in the hands of one person became almost impossible.

The Great French Revolution deprived the monarch, the aristocracy and the Catholic Church of power. The turning point was the adoption of a declaration by representatives of the National Assembly that it had the right to speak on behalf of the entire French people. In the field of liberalism, the French revolutionaries went further than the Americans, introducing universal suffrage (for men), national citizenship and adopting the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” (1789), similar to the American “Bill of Rights”.

For the first few years, liberal ideas dominated the country's leadership, but the government was unstable and could not effectively defend itself against the many enemies of the revolution. The Jacobins, led by Robespierre, concentrated almost all power in their hands, suspended due process of law and launched a large-scale reign of terror, the victims of which were many liberals, including Robespierre himself. Napoleon I Bonaparte carried out a profound legislative reform, which reflected many of the ideas of the revolution, but subsequently abolished the republic and declared himself emperor. A side effect of Napoleonic military campaigns was the spread of liberalism throughout Europe, and after the occupation of Spain, throughout Latin America.

The revolutions significantly strengthened the position of liberals around the world, who moved from proposals to uncompromising demands. Mainly, they sought to create parliamentary republics in place of the existing absolute monarchies. The driving force behind this political liberalism was often economic motives: the desire to end feudal privileges, guilds and royal monopolies, restrictions on property and freedom of contract.

Between 1774 and 1848 There were several revolutionary waves, with each subsequent wave placing greater emphasis on citizens' rights and self-government. Instead of a simple recognition of individual rights, all state power turned out to be a derivative of natural law: either by virtue of human nature or as a result of a social contract (“consent of the governed”). Family ownership and the feudal tradition, in which the obligations of the parties were determined by personal loyalty, were replaced by ideas about voluntary consent, commercial contract and individual private property. The idea of ​​the sovereignty of the people and the fact that people are capable of independently passing all the necessary laws and enforcing them became the basis of national identity and went beyond the teachings of the Enlightenment. A similar desire for independence from external domination in occupied territories or colonies became the basis of the national liberation struggle. In some cases (Germany, Italy) this was accompanied by the unification of small states into large ones, in others (Latin America) - the collapse of colonial systems and decentralization. The education system has become one of the most important public institutions. Over time, democracy was added to the list of liberal values.

Discussions within liberalism

Liberalism and democracy

Initially, the ideas of liberalism and democracy were not only significantly different, but were also in conflict with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, strives to protect it, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners formed civil society, participated in the social contract, and gave the government consent to rule. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the majority of the entire people, including the poor. From the liberals' point of view, the dictatorship of the poor posed a threat to private property and the guarantee of individual freedom. From the Democratic point of view, depriving the poor of the right to vote and the opportunity to represent their interests in the legislative process was a form of enslavement.

Many bright liberals (J. Locke, T. Jefferson, etc.) were opponents of democracy, which was particularly reflected in the original version of the US Constitution, where suffrage was linked to property qualifications. Many popular leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, resorted to anti-liberal measures (introducing censorship, taxes, etc.) Fears on the part of liberals related to democracy especially intensified after the French Revolution. In particular, this is why French liberals generally supported Napoleon Bonaparte, who, although he was an opponent of government accountability (and especially democracy), nevertheless contributed to the implementation and popularization of a number of the most important liberal ideas.

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of this model, called “liberal democracy,” is equality of opportunity, and the most serious threat is the lax government intervention in the economy and its trampling of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of Napoleon III (in 1851), liberals increasingly began to recognize the need for democracy for the full implementation of liberalism. At the same time, some supporters of democracy continued to deny the possibility of a just society built on private property and a free market, which led to the emergence of a movement for social democracy.

Economic liberalism versus social liberalism

The Industrial Revolution significantly increased the wealth of developed countries, but aggravated social problems. Advances in medicine led to an increase in life expectancy and population, resulting in a surplus of labor and falling wages. After workers in many countries received the right to vote in the 19th century, they began to use it to their advantage. The sharp increase in population literacy led to a surge in social activity. Social liberals demanded legislative measures against the exploitation of children, safe working conditions, and a minimum wage.

Classical liberals view such laws as an unfair tax on life, liberty, and property that inhibits economic development. They believe that society can solve social problems on its own, without government regulation. On the other hand, social liberals prefer a government that is large enough to ensure equality of opportunity and protect citizens from the consequences of economic crises and natural disasters.

Wilhelm von Humboldt, in his work “Ideas for the Experience of Determining the Boundaries of State Activity,” substantiated the value of freedom by the importance of individual self-development in order to achieve perfection. John Stuart Mill developed the ideas of this liberal ethic in his On Liberty (1859). He adhered to utilitarianism, emphasizing a pragmatic approach, practical pursuit of the common good and improving the quality of life. Although Mill remained within the framework of classical liberalism, individual rights receded into the background in his philosophy.

By the end of the 19th century, most liberals had come to the conclusion that freedom required the creation of conditions for the realization of one's abilities, including education and protection from excessive exploitation. These conclusions were outlined by Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse in Liberalism, in which he articulated a collective right to equality in transactions (“equitable consent”) and recognized the validity of reasonable government intervention in the economy. In parallel, some classical liberals, in particular Gustavus de Molinari, Herbert Spencer and Oberon Herbert, began to adhere to more radical views close to anarchism.

War and Peace

Another subject of debate, starting from the end of the 19th century, was the attitude towards war. Classical liberalism was a fierce opponent of military intervention and imperialism, advocating neutrality and free trade. Hugo Grotius's treatise On the Law of War and Peace (1625), in which he outlined the theory of just war as a means of self-defense, was a liberal reference book. In the United States, isolationism was the official foreign policy until the end of World War I, as Thomas Jefferson said: “Free trade to all; military alliances with no one.” However, President Woodrow Wilson instead put forward the concept of collective security: confronting aggressor countries through a military alliance and preemptively resolving conflicts in the League of Nations. The idea initially did not find support in Congress, which did not allow the United States to join the League of Nations, but was revived in the form of the UN. Today, most liberals are opposed to unilateral declarations of war by one state on another, except in self-defense, but many support multilateral wars within the UN or even NATO, for example, to prevent genocide.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression of the 1930s shook the American public's faith in classical liberalism, and many concluded that unregulated markets could not create prosperity or prevent poverty. John Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, and President Franklin Roosevelt advocated the creation of a more complex government that would still be a bastion of individual freedom while protecting the public from the costs of capitalism.

John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig Joseph Brentano, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, Bertil Ohlin, and John Dewey described how the state should regulate a capitalist economy to protect freedom while avoiding socialism. In doing so, they made a leading contribution to the theory of social liberalism, which had a significant influence on liberals around the world, in particular the Liberal International, which emerged in 1947. They were opposed by supporters of neoliberalism, according to which the Great Depression was not the result of laissez-faire government into the economy, but on the contrary, excessive government regulation of the market. Economists of the Austrian and Chicago schools (Friedrich August von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc.) point out that the Great Depression was preceded by large-scale monetary expansion and artificially low interest rates, which distorted the structure of investment in the economy. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman identifies the main causes of the Great Depression as the dollar being pegged to gold, regulation of the banking system, higher taxes, and printing money to pay off the national debt.

In 2008, due to the economic crisis, the debate between supporters of neoliberalism and social liberalism intensified again. Calls began to be heard to return to socially oriented policies of income redistribution, protectionism and the implementation of Keynesian measures.

Liberalism versus totalitarianism

The 20th century was marked by the emergence of ideologies that directly opposed liberalism. In the USSR, the Bolsheviks began to eliminate the remnants of capitalism and the personal freedom of citizens, while in Italy fascism appeared, which, according to the leader of this movement, Benito Mussolini, represented a “third way” that denied both liberalism and communism. In the USSR, private ownership of the means of production was prohibited in order to achieve social and economic justice. Governments in Italy and especially in Germany denied people's equal rights. In Germany, this was expressed in the propaganda of racial superiority of the so-called. the "Aryan race", which meant the Germans and some other Germanic peoples, above other peoples and races. In Italy, Mussolini relied on the idea of ​​the Italian people as a “corporation state.” Both communism and fascism sought state control of the economy and centralized regulation of all aspects of society. Both regimes also asserted the priority of public interests over private ones and suppressed personal freedom. From the point of view of liberalism, these common features united communism, fascism and Nazism into a single category - totalitarianism. In turn, liberalism began to define itself as an opponent of totalitarianism and consider the latter as the most serious threat to liberal democracy.

Totalitarianism and collectivism

The above parallel between various totalitarian systems causes sharp objections from opponents of liberalism, who point to significant differences between fascist, Nazi and communist ideologies. However, F. von Hayek, A. Rand and other liberal thinkers insisted on the fundamental similarity of all three systems, namely: they are all based on state support for certain collective interests to the detriment of the interests, goals and freedoms of the individual citizen. These could be the interests of the nation - Nazism, state-corporations - fascism, or the interests of the “working masses” - communism. In other words, from the point of view of modern liberalism, fascism, Nazism, and communism are only extreme forms of collectivism.

Historical reasons for totalitarianism

Many liberals explain the rise of totalitarianism by saying that in times of decline people are looking for a solution in dictatorship. Therefore, the duty of the state should be to protect the economic well-being of citizens and balance the economy. As Isaiah Berlin said, “Freedom for the wolves means death for the sheep.” Neoliberals take the opposite view. In his work “The Road to Serfdom” (1944), F. von Hayek argued that excessive government regulation of the economy could lead to the loss of political and civil liberties. In the 30s and 40s, when the governments of the USA and Great Britain, following the advice of the prominent British economist John Keynes, took a course towards government regulation, Hayek warned about the dangers of this course and argued that economic freedom was a necessary condition for the preservation of liberal democracy. Based on the teachings of Hayek and other representatives of the “Austrian economic school,” a movement of libertarianism arose, which sees any government intervention in the economy as a threat to freedom.

Open society concept

One of the most influential critics of totalitarianism was Karl Popper, who, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), advocated liberal democracy and an “open society” where the political elite could be removed from power without bloodshed. Popper argued that since the accumulation of human knowledge is unpredictable, there is fundamentally no theory of ideal government, therefore, the political system must be flexible enough for the government to smoothly change its policies. In particular, society must be open to multiple points of view (pluralism) and subcultures (multiculturalism).

Welfare and education

The fusion of modernism with liberalism in the post-war years led to the spread of social liberalism, which argues that the best defense against totalitarianism is an economically prosperous and educated population with broad civil rights. Representatives of this movement, such as J. K. Galbraith, J. Rawls and R. Dahrendorf, believed that in order to increase the level of personal freedoms it was necessary to teach them enlightened use, and the path to self-realization lay through the development of new technologies.

Personal freedom and society

In the post-war years, much of the theoretical development in the field of liberalism was devoted to questions about public choice and market mechanisms for achieving a “liberal society”. One of the central places in this discussion is occupied by Arrow's theorem. It states that there is no procedure for ordering social preferences that is defined for any combination of preferences, is independent of individual preferences on extraneous issues, is free from the imposition of one person's choice on the entire society, and satisfies the Pareto principle (i.e., that optimal for each individual should be most preferable for the whole society). The consequence of this theorem is the liberal paradox according to which it is impossible to develop a universal and fair democratic procedure that would be compatible with unlimited freedom of personal choice. This conclusion means that neither a market economy nor a welfare economy in its pure form is sufficient to achieve an optimal society. Moreover, it is not at all clear what an “optimal society” is, and all attempts to build such a society ended in disaster (USSR, Third Reich). The other side of this paradox is the question of what is more important: strict adherence to procedures or equal rights for all participants.

Personal freedom and government regulation

One of the key concepts of the classical theory of freedom is property. According to this theory, a free market economy is not only a guarantee of economic freedom, but also a necessary condition for everyone's personal freedom.

Supporters of freedom do not deny planning in general, but only such state regulation, which replaces the free competition of owners. In the history of the 20th century, there were a number of striking examples of when the rejection of the principle of the inviolability of private property and the replacement of free competition with government regulation in the name of social security and stability led to significant restrictions on the personal freedom of citizens (Stalin’s USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba, and others countries of “victorious socialism”). Having lost the right to private property, citizens very soon lost other important rights: the right to freely choose their place of residence (propiska), place of work (collective farms) and were forced to work for a (usually low) salary assigned by the state. This was accompanied by the emergence of repressive law enforcement agencies (NKVD, Ministry of State Security of the GDR, etc.). A significant proportion of the population was forced to work without pay under conditions of confinement.

It should be noted that there are objections to the above arguments. The relatively low level of wages under socialism is explained by the fact that the state took upon itself the main concerns about housing, medicine, education and social security. The need for repressive security agencies is justified by the protection of the state from external and internal enemies. Significant economic, military and scientific achievements in the countries during the period described are noted. Finally, the fact that some of the goals were ultimately not achieved, corruption, etc., is associated with deviations from the chosen course, as a rule, after the death of one or another leader of the country. These objections seek to show that restrictions on personal freedom were justified and balanced by other values. However, they do not refute the main conclusion of the classical theory of freedom, namely, that without the right of legal private property, supported by the full force of state power, personal freedom of citizens is impossible.

Modern liberalism

Short review

Today, liberalism is one of the leading ideologies in the world. Concepts of personal freedom, self-respect, freedom of speech, universal human rights, religious tolerance, privacy, private property, free markets, equality, rule of law, government transparency, limits on government power, sovereignty of the people, self-determination of a nation, enlightened and reasonable public policy - have become very widespread. Liberal-democratic political systems include countries as different in culture and level of economic well-being as Finland, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Canada, Uruguay or Taiwan. In all these countries, liberal values ​​play a key role in shaping the new goals of society, even despite the gap between ideals and reality.

The list of modern political trends within the framework of liberalism given below is by no means exhaustive. The most important principles that are most often mentioned in party documents (for example, the 1997 Liberal Manifesto) have been listed above.

Due to the fact that in Western Europe and North America most political movements express solidarity with the ideals of political liberalism, the need for a narrower classification arose. Right-wing liberals emphasize classical liberalism, but at the same time object to a number of provisions of social liberalism. They are joined by conservatives who share the political liberal values ​​that have become traditional in these countries, but often condemn individual manifestations of cultural liberalism as contrary to moral standards. It should be noted that historically, conservatism was the ideological antagonist of liberalism, but after the end of World War II and the discredit of authoritarianism, moderate movements began to play a leading role in Western conservatism (liberal conservatism, Christian democracy). In the second half of the 20th century, conservatives were the most active defenders of private property and supporters of privatization.

Actually, “liberals” in the USA are called socialists and leftists in general, while in Western Europe this term refers to libertarians, and left-wing liberals are called social liberals.

Libertarians believe that the government should not interfere with personal life or business activities except to protect the freedom and property of some from the encroachments of others. They support economic and cultural liberalism and oppose social liberalism. Some libertarians believe that in order to implement the rule of law, the state must have sufficient power, others argue that ensuring the rule of law must be carried out by public and private organizations. In foreign policy, libertarians are generally opposed to any military aggression.

Within the framework of economic liberalism, the ideological trend of neoliberalism became isolated. This movement is often viewed as a purely economic theory, outside the context of political liberalism. Neoliberals strive for state non-intervention in the country's economy and for a free market. The state is assigned the function of moderate monetary regulation and an instrument for gaining access to foreign markets in cases where other countries create obstacles to free trade. One of the defining manifestations of neoliberal economic policy is privatization, a striking example of which was the reforms carried out in Great Britain by the cabinet of Margaret Thatcher.

Modern social liberals, as a rule, consider themselves centrists or social democrats. The latter have gained significant influence especially in Scandinavia, where a series of protracted economic downturns have exacerbated social protection issues (unemployment, pensions, inflation). To solve these problems, the Social Democrats constantly increased taxes and the public sector in the economy. At the same time, many decades of persistent struggle for power between right- and left-liberal forces have led to effective laws and transparent governments that reliably protect the civil rights of people and the property of entrepreneurs. Attempts to take the country too far towards socialism led to the loss of power and subsequent liberalization for the Social Democrats. Therefore, today in the Scandinavian countries prices are not regulated (even in state-owned enterprises, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no barriers to trade, including international trade. This combination of liberal and social policies led to the implementation of a liberal democratic political system with a high level of social protection. Similar processes are taking place in other European countries, where the Social Democrats, even after coming to power, pursue a fairly liberal policy.

Liberal parties most often consider the strengthening of liberal democracy and the rule of law, and the independence of the judicial system to be the main goals of their policies; control over the transparency of government work; protection of civil rights and free competition. At the same time, the presence of the word “liberal” in the name of a party does not in itself allow one to determine whether its supporters are right-wing liberals, social liberals or libertarians.

Social liberal movements are also very diverse. Some movements support sexual freedom, the free sale of weapons or drugs, and the expansion of the functions of private security agencies and the transfer of some of the functions of the police to them. Economic liberals often advocate a flat income tax rate, or even replacing the income tax with a capitation tax, the privatization of education, health care and the state pension system, and the transition of science to self-sustaining financing. In many countries, liberals advocate the abolition of the death penalty, disarmament, abandonment of nuclear technology, and environmental protection.

Recently, discussions about multiculturalism have intensified. While all sides agree that ethnic minorities should share the fundamental values ​​of society, some believe that the majority's function should be limited to protecting the rights of ethnic communities, while others advocate the speedy integration of minorities in order to preserve the integrity of the nation.

Since 1947, the Mont Pelerin Society has been operating, uniting economists, philosophers, journalists, and entrepreneurs who support the principles and ideas of classical liberalism.

Modern criticism of liberalism

Proponents of collectivism do not absolutize the importance of individual freedom or the right to private property, instead emphasizing the collective or society. At the same time, the state is sometimes considered as the highest form of the collective and the exponent of its will.

Left supporters of strict government regulation prefer socialism as a political system, believing that only government supervision over the distribution of income can ensure general material well-being. In particular, from the point of view of Marxism, the main disadvantage of liberalism is the uneven distribution of material wealth. Marxists argue that in a liberal society, real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of people who control financial flows. In conditions of economic inequality, equality before the law and equality of opportunity, according to Marxists, remain a utopia, and the real goal is to legitimize economic exploitation. From the point of view of liberals, strict government regulation requires restrictions on salary, choice of profession and place of residence, and ultimately leads to the destruction of personal freedom and totalitarianism.

In addition, Marxism is also critical of the liberal theory of the social contract due to the fact that it views the state as a separate entity from society. Marxism reduces the confrontation between society and the state to a confrontation between classes based on the relationship to the means of production.

Right-wing statists believe that outside the economic sphere, civil liberties lead to indifference, selfishness and immorality. The most categorical are the fascists, who argue that rational progress does not lead to a more humane future, as liberals believe, but, on the contrary, to the moral, cultural and physical degeneration of humanity. Fascism denies that the individual is the highest value and instead calls for the construction of a society in which people are deprived of the desire for individual self-expression and completely subordinate their interests to the objectives of the nation. From the point of view of fascists, political pluralism, the declaration of equality and the limitation of state power are dangerous because they open up opportunities for the spread of sympathy for Marxism.

A softer criticism of liberalism is made by communitarianism (Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, etc.), which recognizes individual rights, but strictly links them with responsibilities towards society and allows for their limitation if they are implemented at public expense.

Modern authoritarian regimes, relying on a popular leader, often carry out propaganda to discredit liberalism among the population. Liberal regimes are accused of being undemocratic due to the fact that voters choose among political elites rather than choosing representatives from among the people (i.e., their own kind). Political elites are seen as puppets in the hands of a single behind-the-scenes group that also holds control over the economy. Abuses of rights and freedoms (demonstrations by radical organizations, publication of offensive materials, baseless lawsuits, etc.) are presented as systemic and planned hostile actions. Liberal regimes are accused of hypocrisy: that they advocate limiting government intervention in the life of their country, but at the same time interfere in the internal issues of other countries (usually, this refers to criticism for human rights violations). The ideas of liberalism are declared a utopia, which is fundamentally impossible to implement, unprofitable and far-fetched rules of the game that Western countries (primarily the USA) are trying to impose on the whole world (for example, in Iraq or Serbia). In response, liberals argue that it is the feasibility of liberal democracy and the accessibility of its ideas to a wide variety of peoples that are the main causes of concern for dictators.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum from statists, anarchism denies the legitimacy of the state for any purpose. (The vast majority of liberals accept that the state is necessary to ensure the protection of rights).

Left-wing opponents of economic liberalism object to the introduction of market mechanisms in areas where they previously did not exist. They believe that the presence of losers and the creation of inequality as a result of competition causes significant harm to the entire society. In particular, inequality arises between regions within the country. The left also points out that historically, political regimes based on pure classical liberalism have proven unstable. From their point of view, a planned economy can protect against poverty, unemployment, as well as ethnic and class differences in health and education.

Democratic socialism as an ideology strives to achieve some minimum equality at the level of the final result, and not just equality of opportunity. Socialists support the ideas of a large public sector, the nationalization of all monopolies (including housing and communal services and the extraction of critical natural resources) and social justice. They are supporters of state funding of all democratic institutions, including the media and political parties. From their point of view, liberal economic and social policies create the preconditions for economic crises.

This distinguishes demosocialists from adherents of social liberalism, who prefer much less government intervention, for example, through economic regulation or subsidies. Liberals also object to outcome-based equalization in the name of meritocracy. Historically, the platforms of social liberals and demosocialists were closely adjacent to each other and even partially overlapped. Due to the decline in the popularity of socialism in the 1990s, modern “social democracy” began to increasingly shift away from democratic socialism towards social liberalism.

Right-wing opponents of cultural liberalism see it as a danger to the moral health of the nation, traditional values ​​and political stability. They consider it acceptable for the state and the church to regulate the private life of people, protect them from immoral acts, and cultivate in them a love for shrines and the fatherland.

One of the critics of liberalism is the Russian Orthodox Church. In particular, Patriarch Kirill, in his speech at the Kiev Pechersk Lavra on July 29, 2009, drew parallels between liberalism and the blurring of the concepts of good and evil. The latter risk is that people will believe the Antichrist, and then the apocalypse will come.

In matters of international politics, the issue of human rights comes into conflict with the principle of non-interference in the sovereign issues of other countries. In this regard, global federalists reject the doctrine of the sovereignty of nation states in the name of protection against genocide and large-scale violations of human rights. A similar ideology is adhered to by American neoconservatives, who call for the aggressive and uncompromising spread of liberalism in the world, even at the cost of a quarrel with the authoritarian allies of the United States. This movement actively supports the use of military force for its own purposes against countries hostile to the United States and justifies the associated violations of the principles of international law. Neoconservatives are closer to statists because they support a strong government and high taxes to cover military spending.

Internationally, liberals in power in developed countries are criticized for keeping their countries and supranational organizations (like the EU) closed to people from other regions, limiting immigration, and making it difficult for third world countries to break into Western markets. Globalization, accompanied by liberal rhetoric, is blamed for the deterioration of workers' rights, the widening gap between rich and poor countries and between classes, the loss of cultural identity, and the lack of accountability of large multinational corporations. She is also suspected of contributing to the overthrow of local elites and the seizure of power by Western countries over the entire planet. From a liberal perspective, provided certain social and economic standards are met, a free and fair global market can only bring benefits to all its participants. This includes increasing production efficiency, free circulation of capital, people and information. Negative side effects, in their opinion, can be eliminated through some regulation.

Criticism of liberalism in literature

At the beginning of the 21st century, with the rise of globalism and transnational corporations, dystopias directed against liberalism began to appear in literature. One such example is the satire of the Australian writer Max Barry “Jennifer's Government”, where the power of corporations is brought to the point of absurdity.

Liberalism in Russia

In the history of Russia there were several liberal upsurges that had a significant impact on the country.
The Decembrist uprising of 1825 was the first radical attempt to introduce constitutional and legal restrictions on state power.

The February Revolution of 1917 put an end to the absolute monarchy.

Perestroika 1987-1991 and subsequent economic reforms launched the country's transition to a market economy.

These events led to both important positive changes and serious negative consequences, as a result of which at the moment the majority of the Russian population has an ambivalent attitude towards liberal values.

In modern Russia, there are a number of parties that claim to be liberal in orientation (but are not necessarily so):

LDPR;
"Just Cause";
Libertarian Party of the Russian Federation;
"Apple";
Democratic Union.